Bishop's Election, Synod Assembly Follow-Up

This morning, at our Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly, we elected Pastor Jim Gonia to serve as the next Bishop of our Synod. He will be installed and begin serving in that position in September, although I'm sure he'll be plenty busy over the next months in preparation for assuming that office.

I was pleased by the results of the election. I expect Pr. Gonia to serve very well as our bishop. I believe his gifts for ministry match well with the next steps we need to take in our synod.

It seems to me that one of the gifts it seems to me that Pr. Gonia brings to this office is that he's willing to consider staffing the office of the Bishop in ways that will be unusual in our synod. See, for my entire tenure in this synod, the professional ministry staff are all part of the same demographic group … well, besides gender. They're all white baby boomers.

Now, as I've noted before, I don't have any problem with baby boomers. However, I do find it problematic when the leadership for a diverse group doesn't reflect in their own makeup the diversity of that group. In this case, the membership of the congregations of our synod is fairly diverse ~ there are newborns, 100-year-olds, and everyone in between.

Unfortunately, though, the leadership of our synod (the synod office staff) has represented only a narrow slice of that diversity.

Obviously Pr. Gonia won't staff the synod office with a 90-year-old in the office next to the 12-year-old. But to call on the gifts and different perspectives on our changing world that are represented by people of different age groups would be a good move for the synod office. And maybe, with a variety of different perspectives on ministry in our contemporary world, our synod will begin in new ways to recognize and celebrate the exemplary ministries in our synod instead of simply lamenting decreases in giving and worship attendance.

Of course, simply installing a new Bishop won't alleviate the problems in our synod or in our congregations, and we'll probably discover new problems that we don't have (or recognize) now ~ but I believe, under Pr. Gonia's leadership, we'll make good strides in the right direction.

$0.02

Bishop's Election, Part Seven

My denomination, the ELCA, publishes a magazine. It's a pretty decent publication ~ could be better, could be much worse. This month, The Lutheran published in one of the articles a statistic. According to ELCA Research and Evaluation, “... the average age of worshipers at an ELCA congregation is 57 and the average age of an American is 33 ...” (March 2012, p. 25)

I'm not sure whether the Rocky Mountain Synod statistics are identical to the national statistics, but I'm sure they're not far off.

I'm going to assume that the church finds this problematic. I'm going to assume that the ELCA would prefer for our attendance and membership demographics to more closely reflect national demographics. I'm going to assume that the church would like to connect more with younger people.

The thing is, though, that if people don't see themselves reflected in the leadership, it surely must be less likely that they would fully participate.

We can make tell ourselves all day long that we value young people. Our statements won't matter, though, if we don't make it a point to install younger people into positions of significant leadership.

Which brings me to the question, 'What would it say about our synod, and the ELCA, for our synodical leadership to be closer to the average age of the country (33) than to the average age of worshipers in the ELCA (57)?

$0.02

Bishop Election, Part Three

In the comments section of my post immediately previous to this one, someone made an astute observation. This person noted their discomfort with what they perceived as ageism in the church. This person draws an parallel between age discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality and ethnicity.

You might agree with this person; you might disagree with their perspective. In some areas of our society, it certainly is true that there is discrimination based on age. In fact, through this recent economic downturn, I'm certain that some people I know had more trouble getting a job than they should have; and I'm certain the reason for this was their age.

However, it's also true that demographics are important. If we were to look around our congregations and see only women, we would recognize that we have a problem. And the truth is that we've been looking at ourselves for decades, recognizing the lack of ethnic diversity as problematic, and trying to address the white-ness of our congregations.

In the same way, it is necessary for the church to look around and see a dearth of young people. It is also necessary for the church to look around and not see young people in significant positions of leadership.

I don't see this as age discrimination. I see it as a problem that the church needs to address. I believe that people over 50 are vital to the vibrancy of the church. I also believe that no age group is more vital to the life of the church than any other.

The thing is, though, that when everyone in leadership is from the same generation, other age groups are necessarily alienated. In fact, this is one of the reasons that I've felt for years that younger leaders don't have a voice in this synod; the full-time ministry staff in the synod office are all demographically the same.

Because we don't have voices from a diversity of age groups in significant leadership positions, I'm afraid that the church is clinging to a way of existence that was life-giving in past decades, but that needs to be tweaked for our world today.

As we prepare for the upcoming election, I'm not asking that we ignore anyone over a certain age. What I'm asking for is that we consider the fact that many young adults are staying away from church, and what it would be like to seriously consider electing a 30-something- or 40-something-year-old bishop.

$0.02

Bishop's Election, Part One

In my little corner of the church, in the Rocky Mountain Synod of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), we have begun the process of thinking about electing a bishop.  What this means, for us, is that people have submitted the names of people who they'd like to see be considered in the election for bishop.  Given the fact that our polity and policy is for nominations to be made at the assembly that will elect the bishop, these submissions don't carry any real weight.

There are 64 people on the list of potential nominees ~ but the reality is that if any of these people are not nominated at the assembly, they won't be considered for bishop.  Also, there could be any number of other people who are not on this 'potential' list that do get nominated.  For instance, Pastor Bob might have been potentially nominated (his name is on the current list), but unless someone writes "Pastor Bob" on the nominating ballot at the assembly, he won't be considered.  Also, Pastor Lisa might not have been potentially nominated, but if someone writes "Pastor Lisa" on the first ballot, she could be elected bishop. 

Also, those 64 people now have the opportunity to write biographical information that will be published, so that assembly voting members can make themselves familiar with those on the potential list before the assembly begins. 


Besides the obvious problems with this process (that these 64 people will have greater name recognition, and therefore greater elect-ability at the assembly; and that it's convoluted and relatively unclear to many people), I also see problems with the demographics of the list.  As I peruse the list, I see only three out of the 64 who are younger than 50.  I have to admit that I'm guessing about people's ages, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. 

Now, there's nothing wrong with people over 50 ~ absolutely nothing.  The problem is that the church doesn't seem to recognize leadership potential in younger people. And before you say 'A bishop really ought to have some significant experience in church leadership', I'll tell you (my seven readers) that we used to much more regularly elect bishops when they were in their 30s and 40s than we do now.  Of course, the people who were in their 30s and 40s then are now in their 50s and 60s and 70s. 

We used to elect younger people to church leadership positions in synods and in congregations and in all expressions of the church.  However, it seems to me that over the last couple decades, the baby boom generation has not been willing to let go of power.  Sure, boomers are willing to let a 20- or 30-year-old lead, as long as the younger people do things the old way; but that's not giving up power, it's just managing from a distance. 

(Yes, I realize I'm stereotyping; yes, I realize that not everyone in the age groups I'm identifying fits the profile I'm articulating; yes, I understand that you might be different; you have to also admit that, despite examples to the contrary, there's truth to what I'm saying.)

So, to have a potential slate of 64 'potential nominees' which contains only three who are under 50 reflects the unfortunate reality that the church is aging (which we knew).  I think it also reflects the fact that the church is afraid to allow younger leaders to really lead. 

I think many people in the church long for perceived-but-never-really-lived glory days of the church.  Because of this, we continue to look for leadership from those who were around then, and neglect leadership from people who might have a different vision of who we are called to be as people of G-d in the world right now. 

I'm not trying to get rid of older people; I am, however, advocating for some room in leadership for some younger people to serve.  Electing, or at least seriously considering, a 40-something-year-old bishop would be a good start. 

$0.02